D'Hondt method: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Variations: Corrections and CN tags
Rescuing 3 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 86:
|}
 
While in this example, parties B, C, and D formed a coalition against Party A. You can see that: Party A received 3 seats instead of 4 due to the coalition having 30,000 more votes than Party A.
{| class="wikitable"
! Round <br/>(1 seat per round)
Line 241:
| issn = 0038-0288
}}
</ref> [[Hungary]] (5% for single party, 10% for two-party coalitions, 15% for coalitions of 3 or more parties) and [[Belgium]] (5%, on regional basis). In the [[Netherlands]], a party must win enough votes for one strictly proportional full seat (note that this is not necessary in plain D'Hondt), which with 150 seats in the lower chamber gives an effective threshold of 0.67%. In [[Estonia]], candidates receiving the simple quota in their electoral districts are considered elected, but in the second (district level) and third round of counting (nationwide, modified D'Hondt method) mandates are awarded only to candidate lists receiving more than the threshold of 5% of the votes nationally. The vote threshold simplifies the process of seat allocation and discourages fringe parties (those that are likely to gain very few votes) from competing in the elections. Obviously, the higher the vote threshold, the fewer the parties that will be represented in parliament.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://faculty.georgetown.edu/kingch/Electoral_Systems.htm|title=Electoral Systems|first=Charles|last=King|website=Prof. King’s Teaching and Learning Resources|access-date=2018-05-05|archive-date=13 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180513092015/http://faculty.georgetown.edu/kingch/Electoral_Systems.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref>
 
The method can cause a ''natural threshold''.<ref>{{Cite report |author=Venice Commission |date=2008 |title=Comparative report on thresholds and other features of electoral systems which bar parties from access to parliament |url=http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2008)037-e |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=February 14, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Gallagher |first1=Michael |last2=Mitchell |first2=Paul |date=2005 |title=The Politics of Electoral Systems |chapter-url=http://www.blogary.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/The_Politics_of_Electoral_Systems.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151010090047/http://www.blogary.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/The_Politics_of_Electoral_Systems.pdf |archive-date=2015-10-10 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |chapter=Appendix C: Effective threshold and effective magnitude |isbn=9780199257560}}</ref> It depends on the number of seats that are allocated with the D'Hondt method. In [[Elections in Finland#Parliamentary elections|Finland's parliamentary elections]], there is no official threshold, but the effective threshold is gaining one seat. The country is divided into districts with different numbers of representatives, so there is a natural threshold, different in each district. The largest district, [[Uusimaa]] with 33 representatives, has a natural threshold of 3%, while the smallest district, [[South Savo]] with 6 representatives, has a natural threshold of 14%.<ref>Oikeusministeriö. [http://www.om.fi/uploads/p0yt86h0difo.pdf Suhteellisuuden parantaminen eduskuntavaaleissa.]</ref> This favors large parties in the small districts.
Line 251:
==Variations==
 
In some cases such as the [[Elections in the Czech Republic|Czech regional elections]], the first divisor (when the party has no seats so far, which is normally 1) is raised to create an [[effective threshold]], favoring larger parties and eliminating small ones. In the Czech case, it is set to 1.42 (approximately <math>\sqrt{2}</math>, termed the Koudelka coefficient after the politician who introduced it).{{cn|date=March 2025}}
 
In 1989 and 1992, [[Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly|ACT Legislative Assembly]] elections were conducted by the [[Australian Electoral Commission]] using a modified d'Hondt electoral system. The electoral system consisted of the d'Hondt system, the [[Australian Senate]] system of proportional representation, and various methods for preferential voting for candidates and parties, both within and across party lines.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections_and_voting/past_act_legislative_assembly_elections/modified_dhondt_electoral_system|title=Modified d'Hondt Electoral System|date=2015-01-06|website=elections.act.gov.au|language=en|access-date=2018-05-05|archive-date=20 September 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920173142/https://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections_and_voting/past_act_legislative_assembly_elections/modified_dhondt_electoral_system|url-status=dead}}</ref> The process involves 8 stages of scrutiny. ABC elections analyst [[Antony Green]] has described the modified d'Hondt system used in the ACT as a "monster ... that few understood, even electoral officials who had to wrestle with its intricacies while spending several weeks counting the votes".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Green |first1=Antony |title=Election Preview |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/act/2020/guide/preview |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=ACT Votes 2020 |publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation}}</ref> It was replaced with the [[Hare-Clark]] system from 1995 onward.
 
Because of the strong [[seat bias]] in D'Hondt, some systems allow parties to associate their lists together into a single [[electoral alliance]] in order to overcome the threshold and win more (or any) seats. Some systems set a separate threshold for such alliances. In a system of proportional representation where the country is divided in multiple [[electoral district]] (such as [[Belgium]]) the [[Election threshold|threshold]] to obtain one seat can be very high (5% of votes in a district since 2003), which also favors larger parties.{{cn|date=March 2025}}
 
===Regional D'Hondt===
Line 261:
 
===Modified d'Hondt electoral system===
The modified d'Hondt electoral system<ref>Australian Capital Territory Electoral Commission, [https://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections_and_voting/past_act_legislative_assembly_elections/modified_dhondt_electoral_system Modified d'Hondt Electoral System] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920173142/https://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections_and_voting/past_act_legislative_assembly_elections/modified_dhondt_electoral_system |date=20 September 2022 }}</ref> is a variant of the d'Hondt method with an [[electoral threshold]] for parties. Votes for parties below the electoral threshold are transferred to other candidates according to the [[single transferable voting]] method. This electoral system was used in [[1989 Australian Capital Territory general election|1989]] and [[1992 Australian Capital Territory election]]s.
 
== Usage by country ==
The D'Hondt method is used to elect the legislatures in [[Åland]], [[Albania]], [[Angola]], [[Argentina]], [[Armenia]], [[Aruba]], [[Austria]], [[Belgium]], [[Bolivia]], [[Brazil]], [[Burundi]], [[Cambodia]], [[Cape Verde]], [[Chile]], [[Colombia]], [[Croatia]], the [[Dominican Republic]], [[East Timor]], [[Estonia]], [[Fiji]], [[Finland]], [[Greenland]], [[Guatemala]], [[Hungary]] (in a [[Electoral system of Hungary|mixed system]]), [[Iceland]], [[Israel]], [[Italy]] (in a [[Mixed electoral system|mixed system]]), [[Japan]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Moldova]], [[Monaco]], [[Montenegro]], [[Mozambique]], [[Netherlands]], [[Nicaragua]], [[North Macedonia]], [[Paraguay]], [[Peru]], [[Poland]], [[Portugal]], [[Romania]], [[San Marino]], [[Serbia]], [[Slovenia]], [[Spain]], [[Switzerland]], [[Turkey]], [[Uruguay]] and [[Venezuela]].
In [[Denmark]] the D'Hondt method is used to elect part of the seats in the [[Folketing]] and the disproportionality of the D'Hondt method is corrected with leveling seats with [[Sainte-Laguë method]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Danish Parliamentary Election Law|url=https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/1260}}</ref>{{Additional citation needed|date=December 2023}} The D'Hondt system is used for the "top-up" seats in the [[Scottish Parliament]], the [[Senedd (Welsh Parliament)]] and the [[London Assembly]]; in some countries for elections to the [[European Parliament]]; and was used during the [[1997 constitution of Thailand|1997 constitution]] era to allocate party-list parliamentary seats in [[Thailand]].<ref>Aurel Croissant and Daniel J. Pojar, Jr., "[https://web.archive.org/web/20060309010621/http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Jun/croissantJun05.asp Quo Vadis Thailand? Thai Politics after the 2005 Parliamentary Election]" {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090419131607/http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Jun/croissantJun05.asp |date=April 19, 2009 }}, ''Strategic Insights'', Volume IV, Issue 6 (June 2005)</ref> The system is also used in practice for the allocation between political groups of numerous posts (vice presidents, committee chairmen and vice-chairmen, delegation chairmen and vice-chairmen) in the [[European Parliament]] and for the allocation of ministers in the [[Northern Ireland Assembly]].<ref>{{cite web |title = D'Hondt system for picking NI ministers in Stormont |work = BBC News |date = 11 May 2011 |url = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-13359731 |access-date = 7 July 2013}}</ref> It is also used to calculate the results in German and Austrian [[works council]] elections.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Betriebsräten|first=ifb-Institut zur Fortbildung von|title=D'Hondtsches Höchstzahlenverfahren|url=https://www.betriebsrat.de/portal/betriebsratslexikon/D/dhondtsches-hoechstzahlenverfahren.html|access-date=2022-01-28|website=D'Hondtsches Höchstzahlenverfahren}}</ref>
 
==Notes==